For quite some time I've been wondering whether a moderation panel might be a better alternative to me being the sole moderator of what is or isn't acceptable conduct on the site.

I'm wondering if a better way of doing this might be to select some members of the community to be co-moderators and to consult on these questions before determining what action to take.

Perhaps the moderation panel might even delegate power to its members to exercise moderation powers themselves in particular circumstances.

We'd need to have some rules in place, and I'm not looking to conduct an election for the panel. I think there are some posters who we could all agree stand out as rarely if ever getting involved in acrimonious arguments who would be good in the role.

Of course they'd have to agree too!

This is not a fully formulated view, but more than a thought bubble too.

Look forward to your thoughts.

A thought bubble like this should be made policy before any further discussion or investigation. It seems to be how policy is announced these days.

Or perhaps focus groups would have to be consulted before a working party could be formed to discuss strategies for establishing a taskforce that would go forward towards selecting a posters' deliberative assembly to lead a three-year enquiry into a suite of recommendations to be put before a subcommittee of senior OLO members

I think we can assign the role to r0bert, Foxy and examinator. They have been long time campaigners for the position of manners police.

Severin could of course put her money where her mouth is with regards to her constant allegations of bias in moderating the Forum, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quite so, lets get Runner, Stern and Al Gore on to that panel to fix things up quick-smart.

That'll see an end to Squeers, Severin, TBC and many others others... you too Belly.

The risk in using OLO is that we offend the sensibilities of The Big Blue Pencil In The Sky.

Maybe an 'appeal panel' of 12 peers would be enough?

Or just carry on knowing TBBPITS is always watching over us, knows what we write, and can see into the depths of the (stony/empty/hard) hearts of the worst offending of the recalcitrant posters.

Just like dealing with gods really, and good practice for life.

TBC

Too true

Houllie

I am never far from your thoughts am I?

I second Foxy and add Examinator.

I would say Foxy and Examinator too.

GY,

In order to give context to my views I restate my view.
As stated before, you as a moderator etc is infinitely better than most.

No one person is perfect and no one gets it right all the time nor should they be expected to.

Secondly, I don't make fusses over your ruling because
a. This is a discussion site. The country's policy isn't formed in the forums on OLO. At best it's a reasonable barometer of the range of opinions.

b. Contributing to OLO isn't part of my ego it is among other things entertaining and A source of mental stimulation for me and others.
What it is not is mandatory or the only option available.
Ultimately it's my choice to contribute or not.

Like any organisation there is an authority chain and one either accepts it's judgements or moves on. I choose the former. I simply accept your authority. When Or if I don't, I'm gone. All this negates, in my mind to make pointless ripples.

On your suggestion directly. The problem I see is perceptions of the appointees and their ability to maintain there online commenting as individuals. Add to that the perception of "politeness police" abusing their 'power' because they disagree (politically etc with the person being sanctioned.

I see issue of egos etc e.g "I'm more objective that XX" "they said this 12 months ago etc." or "they're a Lib/Labor".

For that reason I would suggest that the assistant moderators not be named. In truth it is the function (Competence) that is important not the personality.

I would also suggest that in the instance of a disputed judgement it should go to a majority vote of the committee, you having veto.

Part 1